A COMPREHENSIVE CASE ANALYSIS OF A PATIENT REFERRED TO PHYSICAL THERAPY USING AN EVIDENCE BASED APPROACH JEFF ROBINSON, PT, FAAOMPT Purpose of Presentation Primary purpose: To present a clinical case supported by the best available evidence using guidelines set forth in The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice1 (The Guide). Secondary purpose: To educate the reader about how to practice using evidence to answer clinical questions . To summarize evidence based principles and concepts learned by the presenter in pursuit of his doctorate in physical therapy. To accomplish the secondary goals, the author defines some evidence based principles and concepts and shares with the reader the clinical questions asked in gathering the evidence for this work. Patient/Client Management The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice1 recommends categorizing the elements of patient/client management into 5 categories. This paper will be divided up into sections corresponding to each category of patient/client management. In each section, the data and evidence will be presented corresponding to each category of patient/client management. The various thought processes, clinical questions, and clinical analysis will be described throughout the presentation. Patient/Client Management According to The Guide1 , the 5 Elements of Patient/Client Management: 1. Examination – includes History Systems Review Tests and Measures 2. 3. 4. 5. Evaluation Diagnosis Prognosis Intervention – includes Coordination, communication, and documentation Patient/client-related instruction Procedural interventions Examination – History Identification Information Name – Ms. H Address - USA Date of Birth – 62 y/0 Sex – Female Handedness: Right handed Type of Insurance – Private Aetna 7. Race – White 8. Ethnicity – Not Hispanic or Latino 9. Language – English 10. Education – Graduate school/advanced degree 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Social History 11. Cultural/Religious – no 12. 13. 14. 15. issues that would affect care With Whom Does Patient Live? -Lives alone Advance Directive – Don’t know Referred by: Neurosurgeon Employment – full time manager works outside of home Examination – History Living Environment 16. Lives in apt. with elevator 17. No assistive device for walking/mobilizing 18. Lives in private apt. 19. General health Fair to Good with no lifestyle changes in past yr. 20. Social habits –non smoking, 2-3 glasses of wine per week, no formal exercise, but used to walk to work 21. Family history – unknown 22. Medical / Surgical history – Hypertension, depression, psoriatic arthritis, kidney disease, asthma. No significant symptoms in past year except for back pain. No surgeries. No female related problems Examination - History 23. Current Conditions/Chief complaints: a. Intermittent centralized low back pain, but right greater than left described as deep and achy. Also complains of bilateral lower extremity pain can be posterior or anterior or both. b. When did problem begin? Came on gradually in August 2009 c. What happened? There was no specific incident – gradually worsened over time d. Have you ever had the problem(s) before? Yes, but not to this degree. Had a bout of low back pain 10 years ago which was isolated to low back – had PT for 6 months which helped. Examination - History Current Conditions/Chief complaints continued: e. Taking care of problem now by avoiding aggravating activities. Tried PT elsewhere without help. f. Sitting, lying down make pain better * g. Walking for 10 mins.,** standing for 20 mins., and lifting make problem worse. h. Goal for PT is to be able to walk to/from work without 23. . pain (20 mins.) Be able to go to antique shows and walk around for the day without pain i. Currently not seeing anyone else for this problem other than MD who referred patient. Sees a rheumatologist regularly. Seeing psychiatrist for depression. Examination - History Portney and Watkins detail how to convert pretest probability to post-test probability: 1. Convert pretest probability to pretest odds: Pretest odds = pretest probability /1-pretest probability Pretest odds = .472/1-.472 = .472/.528 = .89 2. Multiply the pretest odds by the LR to get post – test odds: Posttest odds = pretest odds * LR Posttest odds = .89 * 6.6 = 5.874 3. Convert posttest odds to posttest probability: Posttest probability = posttest odds/posttest odds +1 Posttest probability = 5.874 / 6.874 = 85% Post-test probability has risen to 85% Examination - History 24. Functional work Status/Activity Level: 25. Medications – a. Difficulty with Currently taking Locomotion/movement prescription meds: - 1. Difficulty with gait a. Enbrel b. celebrex c. on all surfaces (pain Prempro d. Cozaar e. with walking) Lexapro f. symbicort b. No difficulty with self Non-prescription care medications – fish oil, c. Difficulty with getting calcium groceries as she 26. Other Clinical Tests – normally walks to store. MRI within past year d. No difficulty once at Examination - Systems Review Cardiovascular system: white skin, good skin On BP meds. Impaired, integrity (despite having but stable. psoriatic arthritis) BP: 126/84 Musculoskeletal Edema: non noted System: Gross Range of HR: 78 motion and gross strength RR: not taken – not grossly impaired but will have to do more Integumentary System: detailed exam. Gross symmetry – not grossly not impaired. Integrity impaired. Normal pliability, no presence of scar formation, Height 5’6” Weight 130# Examination - Systems Review Neuromuscular: Gross Coordinated Movements: Not impaired grossly. Gait, Locomotion, Transfers, Transitions not grossly impaired, but is impaired from functional limitation, disability standpoint Motor Function: Not impaired grossly, but will need more detail evaluation in test/measures. Cognition, Learning Style: Communication: not impaired Orientation X 3: not impaired Emotional/behavioral responses: not impaired Learning barriers: none Education needs: disease process, use of devices/equipment, ADLs, exercise program How does patient/client best learn? Pictures and Demonstration Communication, Affect, Examination From the information gathered during the history and systems review, my primary hypothesis was that the patient appeared to be suffering from classic lumbar spinal stenosis, however the prescription from the MD read “spondylolisthesis” Spondylolisthesis Definition – “slipping of one vertebra relative to an adjacent vertebra.” 5 types of spondylolisthesis: Dysplastic – refers to the orientation of the facet joints allowing anterior translation of vertebra Isthmic – involves a lesion of the pars interarticularis Traumatic – due to fracture of the posterior elements other than the pars interarticluris Pathologic – due to a tumor which affects the pars and allows anterior translation Degenerative – secondary to osteoarthritis leading to facet incompetence and disc degeneration. This eventually leads to one vertebra slipping forward on another. Any of these conditions can result in lumbar spinal stenosis Lumbar spinal stenosis Acquired (or degenerative) Lumbar spinal stenosis is caused by the degenerative cascade of loss of disc height, with bulging of the disc and infolding of the ligamentum flavum. Facet joint degeneration follows which can lead to hypertrophy and osteophytes. Spondylolisthesis can then result, but does not occur in all patients. The combination of all of these factors leads to lumbar spinal stenosis. Examination Tests and Measures According to the Guide1, tests and measures are used “to help identify and characterize signs and symptoms of pathology/pathophysiology, impairments, functional limitations, disabilities.” Examination Tests and Measures – Posture & Pain Pain –Numeric pain rating scale (NPRS ) Pain rated at a 5 on average when she gets it. Can be as low as 0 if in an easing position. Posture - Observational analysis: The patient stands with a very erect posture, lumbar spine flattened, slight external rotation of bilateral lower extremities, bilateral knees extended. Examination Tests and Measures - Gait Observational analysis: The patient ambulated with a very erect posture, decreased thoracic and trunk rotation, decreased bilateral arm swing, slight external rotation of bilateral lower extremities, and a narrow base of support. Examination Tests and Measures - Gait Walking capacity (time walked before the onset of symptoms) The treadmill test described by Deen et al8 - done in the clinic - measure duration of timed walked on treadmill before symptoms The self paced walking test (SPWT) in a study by Tomkins et al9 done outside of the clinic measured distance walked before onset of symptoms Examination – Tests and Measures Range of Motion Lumbar range of motion: Lumbar flexion: WNL Lumbar extension: limited to 10 degrees with pain in low back and into buttock on right Lumbar right and left sidebending: limited to 15 degrees with pain especially right sided Lumbar/ thoracic rotation: Limited to 15 degrees bilaterally Examination – Tests and Measures Range of Motion Inclinometer: Conflicting evidence regarding the reliability of inclinometers Hunt et al and Chen et al found inadequate reliability for these measuring instruments Ng et al and Saur et al found adequate reliability Ng et al did use a custom made device to eliminate pelvic motion Electrogoniometer 2 relatively recent studies determined reliability of a flexible electrogoniometer to be .89 and .96 for lumbar spine range of motion. Validity was determined with excellent correlation to radiographs. Examination – Tests and Measures Range of Motion Hip range of motion (tested supine)Flexion: Left 115 right 95. Internal rotation: Left 25 degrees right 10 degrees. External rotation: Left 45 degrees right 35 degrees. Extension (prone) Left 10 degrees right 0 degrees. Examination – Tests and Measures Range of Motion Muscle length: Thomas test + right and left – lacks 20 degrees from neutral on right, left -15 degrees. Knee flexion angle 60 degrees. SLR negative for right and left (to 70 degrees before complaints of tightness Examination Tests and Measures – Cranial and Peripheral Nerve Integrity & Reflex integrity Cranial and Peripheral Nerve Integrity: Segmental neuro exam motor, sensation all WNL Neurodynamic testing – SLR negative and negative for reproduction of symptoms Reflex integrity Normal DTRs (deep tendon reflexes) KJ (knee jerk) and AJ (ankle jerk) Examination – Tests and Measures Joint Integrity and Mobility Tested via PAMs (passive accessory motions) Patient found to be hypomobile throughout the thoracic and lumbar spine Examination – Tests and Measures Joint Integrity and Mobility – Evidence on reliability Two earlier reliability studies18,19 reviewed were in agreement that segmental spinal palpation testing was not reliable using 9-11 point scales (ICCs - .03-.37) A more recent study 20found good agreement between tests in determining the least mobile and most mobile segment, but poor correlation to actual movement when compared to motion testing through MRI which led the authors to question the validity of the test. The findings of this study were suspect, as they used an instrument (MRI) to measure the construct (motion) which was incompatible with the construct they should have measured (stiffness) Examination – Tests and Measures Joint Integrity and Mobility - Evidence A relatively recent study by Fritz et al21, knowing the poor reliability studies, focused on the role of diagnostic tests (in this case segmental motion testing) in classifying patients for intervention When condensing the grading scale into hypomobility, hypermobility and normal mobility and classifying a patient as hypomobile when 1 lumbar segment was judged to be hypomobile, there does appear to be good predictive validity in determining what type of intervention may be appropriate Found that manipulation is beneficial for these patients Examination – Tests and Measures Motor Function Motor Function – Observational analysis - poor ability to contract (poor isolation) of transversus abdominis There are more objective tests to measure transversus abdominis contraction (quality, timing, degree). Pressure biofeedback Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging (RUSI) Examination – Tests and Measures Motor Function and Muscle Performance Pressure biofeedback Von Garnier22 et al found poor inter-tester reliability when using pressure biofeedback during the “prone test” • Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging (RUSI) Koppenhaver et al22 found good inter-tester reliability when testing transversus abdominis and multifidus muscle function using ultrasound Examination – Differential Diagnosis Cycling test Test first described by Dyck and Doyle24 Case study Authors observed pain with upright postures (walking and standing) Decreased pain while on bike with FLEXION postures (patient had pain in extension while on bike) This was more of a postural test vs. an exertional test Dong and Porter25 studied patients with neurogenic claudication and vascular claudication Conclusions were that the test was not sensitive enough to distinguish between neurogenic and vascular claudication Examination Tests and Measures – Gait – Differential diagnosis Two stage Treadmill Test26 This is a test of 3 components Time walked on level treadmill Time walked on incline treadmill Recovery time The most important variables found were time to onset of symptoms and time to recover. Total walking time was not an important variable. Using the most important variables mentioned above a LR of 14.5 was calculated – meaning that a patient with an early onset of symptoms with level walking and with a prolonged recovery time has a 14.5 times greater chance of stenosis than not An ability to walk for a long period of time while inclined vs. flat had a high specificity (92.3) for ruling in lumbar spinal stenosis Overall specificity of 94.7 for the two stage treadmill test, as 18 of 19 patients were correctly identified as stenotic (MR/ CT used as gold Examination Tests and Measures – Ergonomics and Body Mechanics Observational analysis: Patient demonstrated poor body mechanics while lifting. Patient maintained knees in locked position and flexed from lumbar spine (vs. bending knees and hips). Self care and Home Management & Work, Community, and Leisure Integration or Reintegration These areas were broadly evaluated with the Modified Oswestry Disability Index Initial score of 44% MCID (Minimally Clinically Important Difference) was found to be 6.27 History – Diagnostic tests MRI Findings: There are degenerative changes of all of the intervertebral discs, most severe at the L5/S1 level where there is prominent narrowing of the disc space. There is mild diffuse disc bulging at the L4/L5 and L5/S1 levels and minimal disc bulging at the L2/L3 and L3/L4 levels. There is no focal disc herniation. At the L5/S1 level, there is severe bilateral facet joint osteoarthropathy with related very mild anterolisthesis and prominent ligamentum flavum hypertrophy. These degenerative changes result in moderate to severe central canal stenosis. There is very mild degeneration of the facet joint throughout the remainder of the lumbar spine. No other focal area of central canal stenosis is present. There is very mild encroachment of the neural foramina throughout the mid and lower spine without evidence of focal nerve root impingement. History – Diagnostic tests MRI findings continued The conus medullaris and cauda equina appear normal. No intradural or extradural mass is present . There is no other abnormality of alignment. There are prominent discogenic degenerative changes of the bone marrow surrounding the L5/S1 interspace; otherwise, the vertebral bodies and paraspinal soft tissues are unremarkable. Conclusion: There is multilevel degenerative disc bulging, spondylosis, and facet joint osteoarthropathy, as described above, with very mild degenerative anterolisthesis at the L4/L5 level. These degenerative changes result in moderate to sever central canal stenosis at the L4/L5 level. There is also very mild multi-level foraminal encroachment without evidence of focal nerve root impingement. No focal disc herniation is present within the lumbar spine. Evaluation According to The Guide1, “physical therapists perform evaluations (make clinical judgements based on the data gathered from the examination.” Evaluation History and Systems Review Evaluation Tests and Measures Pain Gait Evaluation Tests and Measures Lumbar range of motion Hip range of motion Muscle length Neurological testing Evaluation Tests and Measures Joint mobility testing Muscle function tests Diagnosis My clinical impression of this patient is that she is suffering from the pathology of lumbar spinal stenosis. A diagnosis based on pathology is not always clinically relevant and physical therapists must identify impairments, functional limitations, and disabilities in order to appropriately manage a patient. According to The Guide1, “although physicians typically use labels that identify disease, disorder, or condition at the level of cell, tissue, organ or system, physical therapists use labels that identify the impact of a condition on function at the level of the system (especially the movement system) and at the level of the whole person. “ I have created a list which is detailed in the following slides to assist in visualizing the patient’s pathology, impairments, functional limitations, and disabilities Diagnosis - pathology Spondylolisthesis Lumbar spinal stenosis Asthma Depression Hypertension Psoriatic arthritis Diagnosis - Impairment list Impairments: Decreased posture Pain rated at 5/10 on average Decreased gait Gait quality Gait distance without pain Decreased range of motion Lumbar Hip Muscle length in lower extremities (hip flexors, rectus femoris) Decrease joint mobility Decreased knowledge of exertional parameters Diagnosis – Functional limitations and Disability lists Functional limitations: Inability to ambulate to / from work without pain (this is a 20 min. walk and pain comes on at 10 mins. Inability to stand for greater than 10 mins. Disability: Inability to participate in “antiquing” trips (all day events that entail standing, walking, mulling about) Travel is curtailed or at the very least made less enjoyable Diagnosis Primary Practice Pattern – 4F Impaired Joint Mobility, Motor Function, Muscle Performance, Range of Motion, and Reflex Integrity Associated With Spinal Disorders Secondary Practice Pattern – 6A Primary Prevention/Risk Reduction for Cardiovascular/pulmonary disorders Prognosis Study by Amundsen28 revealed in patients with non-surgical treatment a good result was obtained by 70% of subjects. The same study reported a good result from surgery for 79% of the subjects. Subjects were assigned to a surgical group if their condition was considered severe and a non-surgical group if symptoms were moderate. Patients were followed for 10 years. Study by Herno29 in which patients had “moderate” stenosis concluded non-surgical management was a reasonable option. Study by Hurri30 found improvements in surgical and non surgical cases Athiviriam et al31 also found improvements in both surgical and non-surgical groups Prognosis Surgical vs. Non-surgical options Conclusions: Generally for severe stenosis, patients will do well with surgery. For mild/moderate stenosis, patients may do well with nonsurgical intervention. There is no harmful effect of patients undergoing conservative measures first. Given the cost of surgery, risk of surgery, and the fact patients do not worsen with conservative care, and the fact that clinical symptoms do not always coincide with radiographic findings, a trial of non-surgical care is warranted for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Prognosis Frustrations Most studies that compared surgical to non-surgical care lumped all non-surgical care together The non-surgical care options were generally: physical therapy back braces spinal manipulation Analgesics muscle relaxants anti-inflammatories epidurals Prognosis Frustrations Most studies did not differentiate between stenosis secondary to spondylolisthesis and stenosis for other reasons, although lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to spondylolisthesis was an accepted occurrence in the degenerative cascade and an accepted reason for stenosis Physical therapy was not well defined in any study and so we don’t know what physical therapy means Does it mean manual therapy? Does it mean therapeutic exercise? Does it mean modalities? Other? Other prognostic factors Accessibility of resources: + Adherence to the intervention program: + Age: + Caregiver Consistency or expertise: Cognitive status: + Comorbities: Concurrent medial surgical and therapeutic interventions: Decline in functional independence: Level of impairment: + Level of physical function: +/Living environment: + Multisite or multisystem involvement: Overall health status: +/Potential discharge destination: + Premorbid conditionsProbability of prolonged impairment: Psychological or socioeconomic factors: +/Psychomotor abilities: + Social support: +/Stability of the condition: - Prognosis – Clinical Decision The general consensus was for mild to moderate stenosis there is a reasonable chance that the patient may improve with conservative care. My question to myself was – does my patient have mild to moderate stenosis? According to the MRI – my patient has moderate to severe stenosis. In taking all factors into consideration, using my best clinical judgement, I concluded the patient had moderate stenosis from a symptom point of view. She is a high functioning patient working in a managerial position, who can perform all work and self care functions including short functional walks, but her goal is to function at a much higher level than she is currently. Prognosis Statement Given the severity of pathology (moderate), comorbities (many, but well controlled), motivation of patient (high), and all other factors of the examination, the patient has good potential for avoiding surgery and meeting the stated goals in the plan of care in 8-10 weeks. Plan of Care 1.) Through coordination, communication, and documentation, the patient will experience 100% satisfaction with the coordination of care with her other health care providers, coordination of submitting claims with our support staff, and communication and documentation requested by her health insurance company or other health care providers throughout the course of her visits. 2.) Through patient instruction and education, the patient will demonstrate understanding of the anatomy behind lumbar spinal stenosis, the proposed treatment, and the importance of a home exercise program through verbalization with 100% accuracy. 3. )Through patient instruction, the patient will understand appropriate parameters for aerobic exercise and be able to implement without verbal cues. Plan of Care 4.) Utilizing the procedural interventions of therapeutic exercise and manual therapy, the patient will demonstrate increased hip range of motion of 10 degrees for each motion. 5.) Utilizing the procedural interventions of therapeutic exercise and manual therapy the patient will demonstrate no pain with lumbar extension and sidebending. 6.) Utilizing the procedural interventions of therapeutic exercise and manual therapy, the patient will demonstrate the ability to walk to and from work for 20 minutes without pain. 7.) Utilizing the procedural interventions of therapeutic exercise, manual therapy, and Plan of Care functional training, the patient will be able to tolerate 1 full day of “antiquing” without pain. 8.) Utilizing the procedural interventions of therapeutic exercise, manual therapy, and functional training , the patient will demonstrate an improvement of 6 percentage points on the modified Oswestry Disability Index. 9.) Utilizing the procedural interventions of functional training, the patient will demonstrate proper lifting technique without verbal cues. ** The frequency and duration required to accomplish the above goals is 2X week for 6 weeks** after which a reassessment will be done.** Intervention Coordination, communication, and documentation Coordination with the patient and our administrative staff was necessary in order for our staff to receive all necessary insurance cards, prescriptions, and personal information in order to submit claims to the insurance company Coordination with the patient and our office was accomplished to allow early morning appointment times so the patient did not have to miss work Coordination with colleagues was done to ensure the unweighting unit would be available during the patient’s appointment times Communication to the patient in the realm of expected outcomes (patient will not be 100% cured) was made clear to the patient Findings were documented and letters sent to referring physician and patients rheumatologist (pt. had concurrent diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis which was well controlled) Intervention Patient/client related instruction Patient was educated on the nature of her problem using a spine model to demonstrate what lumbar spinal stenosis is Patient was educated about proposed treatment options and given the rationale behind them Patient was educated on the importance of her home exercise program and to not rely solely on (2) 45 minute appointments per week to solve the problem Intervention Procedural Interventions Manual therapy combined with exercise is effective in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis A 2006 study by Whitman et al32 as the highest quality study in this category This study is very clinically relevant because it looked at combining physical therapy interventions as is done in clinical scenarios and was determined to be the best available evidence Intervention - Best available evidence Brief Summary of best available evidence32 RCT Comparison of 2 groups Group 1 received manual physical therapy, exercise, and unweighted treadmill walking (MPTExWG) Group 2 received lumbar flexion exercises, treadmill walking program, and subtherapeutic ultrasound (FExWG) Primary outcome measure was perceived recovery, secondary outcomes included oswestry, pain, satisfaction, and treadmill test Best available evidence - Results The primary outcome measure was “perceived recovery” which at 6 weeks with the MPTFExWG showed significantly better perceived recovery. At the longer term follow-ups (1 year and 24+ months) although there was still significant improvement noted in perceived recovery, there no longer was a difference between the groups. (Confidence interval included a negative.) Secondary outcomes were disability, treadmill walking test, pain, and satisfaction all of which showed greater improvement in the MPTFExWG, although not statistically significant. (Confidence interval included a negative.) Case Analysis - Intervention Procedural Interventions – manual therapy techniques Typically sessions would start with manual treatments to the spine and progress to manual treatments distally. Manual therapy to the spine largely consisted of posterior to anterior pressures (PAs) to the thoracic spine and lumbar spine and passive physiological intervertebral movements (PPIVMs) mostly into rotation Manual treatments progressed distally to include mobilization of the hip joint in various directions. Manual therapy intervention also included soft tissue mobilization of the gluteal, piriformis, and hip flexor musculature. Interevention Procedural interventions Case Analysis - Intervention Case Analysis - Intervention Procedural Interventions - Therapeutic exercise – in clinic exercise The patient ambulated on the unweighting unit for 15-30 mins. after receiving manual treatment The amount of unloading varied between 30-40# In general, the patient was able to tolerate longer and longer periods of time on the treadmill with decreased amount of unloading over the course of treatment (although there was variability depending on activity levels of the patient during that day and time of day of treatment) Case Analysis - Intervention Case Analysis - Intervention Procedural Interventions: Therapeutic exercise – home exercise program The patient was instructed in knee to chest exercises (single and double knee to chest) holding for 30 secs. 3 sets to be done twice daily. The patient was also instructed in a flexion exercise to be used as a means of symptom reduction in standing. The patient was instructed in piriformis, hip flexor and quadriceps stretching to be performed for 30 secs holds for 3 sets The patient was instructed in a thoracic rotation exercise in sidelying - 20 reps. each side. The patient was instructed in a lumbar stabilization program. Intervention Hip flexor stretching: I was able to locate a study 36 which looked at 45 subjects with low back pain and hip flexor tightness as determined by a positive Thomas test. The randomized the subjects into 2 groups and then had one group stretch actively and one group stretch passively. After statistical analysis, there were no differences found between the groups. Case Analysis - Intervention 3. • • Procedural Interventions – therapeutic exercise The patient was encouraged to initiate a stationary cycling program as this has been shown to replicate the effects of unloaded treadmill walking in a well designed RCT37 The patient did not have easy access to a stationary bike and did not enjoy that activity, but did have free access to a public pool as a city resident o The patient was encouraged to begin an aqua jogging program to simulate the unloading effects of the unweighting system in the clinic o The patient enjoyed the water and was very diligent in adhering to a 2x week schedule – this offered pain relief and therefore was not a “tough sell” Case Analysis - Intervention Procedural intervention – functional training in self care The patient was instructed in proper sleeping position (pillow under knees). The patient was instructed in proper body mechanics and proper lifting technique Reassessment 1. Pain – patient rated pain at a level of 3/10 on average during provocative activities 2. Lumbar range of motion increased to 25 degrees for extension before the onset of pain, 30 degrees for thoracic / lumbar rotation 3. Hip range of motion increased to 120 for flexion, 30 degrees for internal rotation, 10 degrees for extension. 4. Gait quality improved to entail increased thoracic rotation. 5. Walking capacity improved to the point the patient could walk for 20 mins. before the onset of pain 6. Oswestry improved to 34%. Outcomes 1.) The patient experience d 100% satisfaction with the coordination of care with her other health care providers, coordination of submitting claims with our support staff, and communication and documentation requested by her health insurance company or other health care providers throughout the course of her visits (patient subjective response). 2.) The patient demonstrated an understanding of the anatomy behind lumbar spinal stenosis, the proposed treatment, and the importance of a home exercise program through verbalization with 100% accuracy. 3. ) The patient understood appropriate parameters for aerobic exercise and was able to implement without verbal cues. Outcomes 4.) The patient exerienced a reduction in pain rated at a 3 on the NRPS during provocative activities. The MCID of the NPRS is 27 – the patient did achieve an important clinically meaningful change 5.) The patient will demonstrate increased hip range of motion of over 10 degrees for each motion to 120 degrees for flexion, 30 degrees for internal rotation, and 10 degrees for extension. 6.) The patient will demonstrated increased lumbar extension to 20 degrees for extension and 30 degrees for rotation, but still experienced pain at end ranges. Outcomes 7.) The patient was able to walk to and from work for 20 minutes without pain. 8.) The patient will be able to tolerate 1 full day of “antiquing” without pain using techniques to pace herself. 9.) The patient demonstrated an improvement of 10 percentage points on the modified Oswestry Disability Index. The MCID of this instrument is 6.27 The patient exsperienced a meaningful clinical change. 1 10.) The patient was able to demonstrate proper lifting technique without verbal cues. Summary This case was a good example of a patient with a medical diagnosis (spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis) referred to physical therapy and the physical therapist identifying impairments, functional limitations, and disabilities and then directing intervention to affect those areas. Although I recognized my deficiencies in documentation and utilizing tests and measures with sound reliability, I generally was very happy with the interventions I utilized in helping this patient. I was aware of the research regarding intervention for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis while treating this patient. The combination of having the appropriate equipment and having the expertise in delivering the manual therapy and exercise components of the interventions was obviously of great benefit. Future needs for research related to lumbar spinal stenosis More research comparing various non-surgical methods to come up with the best non-surgical methods of treatment or best combination of nonsurgical methods (epidurals, medications, physical therapy) for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis Build upon the best available evidence that we do have to determine how to best replicate the short term positive effects of physical therapy intervention for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis for the longer term. References For references, please refer to annotated bibliography.